Reince Priebus’s not so crazy plans

posted at 8:41 am on March 19, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Yesterday, both Ed and AP provided some coverage and commentary on the “autopsy” of the GOP following the 2012 election by the RNC and Chairman Priebus’s plans to try to set the situation to rights. Obviously, this caused quite a stir amongst the base, which the media took great joy in wringing its collective hands over.

John Brabender, Santorum’s chief adviser, said the reforms would favor the moneyed candidates.

“While I commend Chairman Priebus for taking important steps to remedy Republicans’ recent election failures, I am troubled by the possibility of a condensed presidential primary process which undoubtedly gives an advantage to establishment backed candidates and the wealthiest candidates,” said Brabender.

Brabender was hardly alone, and there was a great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments among the faithful. But there are a couple of important points buried in here. Between Ed and AP’s commentary, I’d like to focus for the moment on the latter. I was put in mind of something that Priebus said on the Sunday morning circuit dealing with the difference between winning “the math war” and the “war for the heart.” I’d prefer to spend a moment looking at the latter, but Allahpundit did a very good job of covering the former, which bears repeating here for those who missed it.

Everyone understands the strategizing, right? I assume 90 percent of the readership does but here’s a quickie primer for that 10 percent that doesn’t watch the primaries closely. Caucuses favor candidates with intensely committed followers, even if their overall base of support is small. The caucus process takes much longer than simple ballot voting does so casual voters stay away while passionate supporters show up. That means overall turnout is way lower than in a primary, which in turn means that a dark horse candidate who lacks money and name recognition can pull a huge upset by mobilizing his fans.

No matter how bitter of a pill that may be to swallow, it has the ring of truth. But just looking at this in terms of hard math isn’t quite enough as I see it, since this will apparently be a bitterly fought bone of contention in the upcoming cycle. With that said…

During the primary process and debates (which Reince wants to shorten, as noted above) there were a number of candidates who were perfectly fitted for a caucus environment. Unfortunately, that’s all they were designed for. I watched the process roll out with some wry amusement, frequently posting a picture on Twitter of Bart Simpson standing before a chalk board writing over and over, I will not yell suck it when Mitt Romney wins the nomination. And there was a reason for that.

Many good friends were huge supporters of some of the more “fringe” candidates on stage at those debates. I don’t question their passion or their enthusiasm for a moment. They were sincere supporters. But as a few of us were pointing out time and time again, there was simply no way – zero, zilch, nada – that Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain or (God help us all) Donald Trump were ever going to be elected president. Yes, Mitt Romney lost, but let’s not fool ourselves here. Given the national temperature of the electorate, if we had put one of them on the ballot somehow, historians would be writing for the next century about the popular vote electoral landslide that Obama carried for his reelection. (The electoral college count likely wouldn’t have changed much, as there are still – for now – a given block of states who would have voted against Obama even if we’d nominated a rabid cocker spaniel with a bad case of mange.)

But the election was not just won in the center… though that’s vastly important to the numbers. You can make the claim that a certain percentage of the hard core, Right base didn’t turn out. The numbers support that. But there were a ton of Northeastern, Midwest and left coast Republicans who still voted for Mitt. And if you put up one of these other, caucus powered, outside candidates, you’d have lost them in the mix.

Further, the idea of reducing the number of debates – specifically because of these caucus powered candidates – works out as a net positive. To the point Priebus was making, as you wind your way through 23 debates, it just represents one opportunity after another for these candidates to drive the potentially viable ones further and further to the Right to try to keep up. This is great for conservative headlines, but leaves them increasingly vulnerable when one of them finally makes it to the general election. Also – and we shouldn’t have to argue about this very much – the moderators for the majority of these debates are there to actively dig up incendiary sound bites to discredit conservatives and fill up cable news air time. How many bites at that apple would you like to give them? How many times do you want all the candidates to get asked about rape and the Voting Rights Act and Social Security and all the rest of the Left wing headline drivers before enough is enough?

In the end, you can say all you want about the “low information” or “low motivation” or brain dead voters who won’t stand in nine groups in the church basement for six hours after dinner for a caucus. Insult them all you like, and point out how they aren’t “strong” enough to fight for their cause in a caucus. But they DO show up in a primary. And they show up in the general election. And that’s who you’ve got to convince on election day. If the message of these caucus powered candidates is truly viable they will thrive in a fair outing where all of the voters who show up in the general take part. Criticizing Priebus for pointing out some basic, if unpleasant, mathematical realities isn’t going to take back the White House any time soon.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Priebus is smarter than you all. Get that? You will like his suggestion and continue to vote for the GOP candidates that they push whether you like it or not.

On another note, the GOP is the frickin stupidiest party there is.

Yeah let’s be inclusive-sure. But as long as the Dems control the narrative and the Repubs don’t know how to fight it then you all will always be racist, sexist, homophobes- and Priebus’s report said NOTHING effective about dealing with the hostile media or rewriting the narrative which is what is really the problem with the LIV. See Repub like Priebus think we all have to be more inclusive because he believe that the little Repubs rank and file are actually sexist, racist, homophobes. And as long as they believe that about their own party; they will never be able to effectively rewrite the narrative.

But there were a ton of Northeastern, Midwest and left coast Republicans who still voted for Mitt. And if you put up one of these other, caucus powered, outside candidates, you’d have lost them in the mix.

1.) You lost the northeast (as always)
2.) You lost the west coast (as always)
3.) You lost the midwest (which has previously been won by far more conservative candidates)

So by putting up one of the other “caucus powered, outside candidates,” I really don’t see what you have to lose. In fact, as you admit:

The electoral college count likely wouldn’t have changed much, as there are still – for now – a given block of states who would have voted against Obama even if we’d nominated a rabid cocker spaniel with a bad case of mange

We can afford to lose every vote in California if it gives us an Ohio, Virginia, or Florida. I think you also grossly underestimate the power of enthusiasm, and that it would more than make up for the RINO vote staying home.

So a long story short, I think you’re wrong on the absolute numbers, and even if I were to concede that, following your recommended strategy would be foolhardy since it’s not the overall number of votes you get, but how those votes are distributed in the states that wins or loses you the presidency.

The Beltway continues its willing obliviance to the economic plight of average Americans, and disparaging of the Heartland of America’s System of Beliefs and Values, which have protected and sustained this country since its founding.

Thomas Jefferson, an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States once said,

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

If our servants on Capital Hill do not “straighten up” and remember that we are their bosses, and not the other way around, it could lead to civil disobedience, or worse.

We need to encourage more states, especially purple and blue ones, to close primaries. States that are purple or blue should also have their local GOP donors look seriously into feeding the ambitions of embarrassingly nutty candidates on the D side. This will keep D voters registering D to vote against them, rather than R to screw with our primaries.

I agree completely that it was a really dumb idea to have 23 primary debates and an even dumber idea to allow a worthless liberal troll like George Stephanapolus plant the fake war on women theme in the middle of one of them.

That being said, I’m really tired of establishment Republicans sneering at anyone further to the right and explaining exactly why the GOP needs to try to pander to gays, illegals, and stupid women who only care about their “right” to kill unwanted children.

Too much focus by the political junkies on the debates and primaries in this report rather than the bigger problem which is the stupid strategy of outreach to groups that are ideologically very hostile to conservatism.

An outreach to blacks is the biggest joke of all. We simply cannot win more than 10% of blacks under any circumstances because 90% of blacks believe that government must give them free money, it is that simple. Therefore any outreach to black is an absolute waste of time, energy, and money…

We simply cannot convince people who are ideologically very hostile to conservatism (90% of blacks (Welfare), at least 55% of Hispanics (Welfare), at least 60% of single women (Abortion), and at least 60% of people under the age of 30 (Abortion and Gay marriage)) to vote for Republicans without denouncing and leaving our conservative principles… It is that simple…

Instead of outreach to these groups we should invest in increasing our share of the electorate where we are the strongest i.e. among Whites and try to get at least 40% of Hispanics. To increase the share among Whites from the current 59% to at least 65% we have to agitate the producers whom the vast majority of them are Whites against the Welfare Queens and Kings such as the Obama phone woman. Nothing will rile up the producers more and bring them to vote in masses than seeing their hard earned money being used by the welfare parasites… We need to get the 40% of Hispanics who share our values of hard work, low taxes, small government, and are socially conservatives…

By getting 65% of Whites and 40% of Hispanics we can win the Presidential election.

I actually think Michelle Bachmann would have been a formidable nominee.

commodore on March 19, 2013 at 9:07 AM

If by formidable you mean unelectable. I like Bachmann for a lot of reasons and agree with her on many issues. But to think she could have defeated the rat-eared Satan is another thing entirely. And not only because she had dual citizenship.

It’s getting so every time I see a post written by Jazz Shaw, I know to avoid it. He’s getting as bad as the ruling class in Washington.

You can argue this point back-and-forth all you want. Simple, historical facts do not support the nomination of moderates such as Mitt Romney. Were Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum the right alternatives to Romney? Probably not. But that isn’t because a moderate candidate is the way to go.

You don’t have to go to ancient history to see this play out. It played out just slightly over 2 years ago, in the 2010 mid-term elections. Republicans ran as solid, committed tea party conservatives and swept to victory in one of the biggest mid-term landslides in history. Trust me, the electorate hasn’t made seismic shifts to the left in just 2 years. If we were talking about 50 years ago, you could argue that. But not in 2 years.

But go back to, say, 1980 and work your way forward. Reagan won as a solid conservative in two landslides. George H.W. Bush won when he was seen as a continuation of Reagan, he lost when he was outed as a moderate. Republicans swept into Congress with a solid conservative plan in 1994, they got swept out when they went moderate in their governance, and they got swept back in when they went tea party conservative in 2010. Meanwhile, moderates from Dole to McCain to Romney consistently lose.

The lone exception to this is the anomaly that is George W. Bush. But even he, who was thought more conservative than he really was originally, barely squeaked by in 2000 after losing the popular vote, and then was re-elected on the basis of an historic attack on our country on 9/11.

I don’t understand why this reality is so difficult for so many to understand. It’s simple: When Republicans run as conservatives, they win. When Republicans run as Democrat Lite, they lose. Period.

That being said, I’m really tired of establishment Republicans sneering at anyone further to the right and explaining exactly why the GOP needs to try to pander to gays, illegals, and stupid women who only care about their “right” to kill unwanted children.

Does anyone really think that if the Pubs come out in favor of SSM, amnesty, more taxes, and any other pet issues of the Dems, that people will flock to them? Look what happened with Portman the other day. He got skewered more from liberals than from Conservatives. There is no way the Left will share any of its platform planks, let alone lose them by slick Republican packaging.

I also think it is funny that GOP elitist who surround themselves well by themselves are lecturing us on being inclusive. My family actually includes gays, blacks and hispanics. Can those GOP elitists say the same?

If by formidable you mean unelectable. I like Bachmann for a lot of reasons and agree with her on many issues. But to think she could have defeated the rat-eared Satan is another thing entirely. And not only because she had dual citizenship.

Happy Nomad on March 19, 2013 at 9:15 AM

As long as she would be willing to flaunt her dual citizenship to point out Obama’s lack thereof, I would support her. Unfortunately, she chose to play Mitt’s attack dog instead. When she isn’t able to hold onto her own district, I won’t shed a tear. I can live with RINOs – I have a poster-case of it, living in NJ – but I abhor political treachery.

Does anyone really think that if the Pubs come out in favor of SSM, amnesty, more taxes, and any other pet issues of the Dems, that people will flock to them? Look what happened with Portman the other day. He got skewered more from liberals than from Conservatives. There is no way the Left will share any of its platform planks, let alone lose them by slick Republican packaging.

Liam on March 19, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Bingo! We have blacks and women in our party and yet women and blacks still vote Dem because we are “racist and sexist.” We aren’t suddenly going to be seen as the tolerant party. That is called packaging and writing a narrative and that is something the GOP obviously thinks they don’t have to work on as seen by Priebus’s report that included almost nothing on how to deal with the media.

When Republicans run as conservatives, they win. When Republicans run as Democrat Lite, they lose. Period.

Shump on March 19, 2013 at 9:16 AM

That’s because it is impossible to out Santa the party of free stuff. People that respond to promises of SSM, or free birth control, or amnesty are not going to listen to the conservative message. They’re greedy stupid parasites who want stuff from their government and the Dems are more than happy to pander. The GOP can offer up its own versions of stuff but it always comes off as weak sauce compared to the full-throated blaring promises made by the Dems.

IMO, the strategy for success is to not even try and be like Oprah on steroids and promise all things to all people. For example, when the left started the “the GOP declared war on women meme,” the correct response should have been a heck of a lot more than the “did not” that was offered. The GOP should have fought back not only spelling out their positions but when the HHS mandate came out they should have been fighting it not as a woman parts issue but as a religious freedom argument. In other words they should have proudly defended the Constitution instead of simply playing defense against the idea that Republicans want to see every woman punished with unwanted babies.

That is called packaging and writing a narrative and that is something the GOP obviously thinks they don’t have to work on as seen by Priebus’s report that included almost nothing on how to deal with the media.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

One of my biggest gripes with the last election here in VA was that there was an ad run by some feminazi group that flat-out said that Mitt Romney wanted to ban abortions. Well, that wasn’t Romney’s position but this one ad was played unchallenged so often that polling showed a significant number of stupid women actually believed it. You can’t win elections by ignoring the way your enemy is trying to package your campaign.

I’m with Rush on this one. The only reason the left wins is because they celebrate death, lust and envy with free lunches as bait (do we seriously want to compete with doing more of this?)the right fails to oppose this evil.

Giving the barbarians what they want for their vote doesn’t end up with freedom. This is pure idiocy!

Santorum’s chief adviser, said the reforms would favor the moneyed candidates.

Perhaps that is true at the level of presidential candidates if there are those who have never run for office before, but in general it sounds like support for more of the needs of the grassroots, and campaigns for lower level offices. Farm team help. All that stuff about sharing data, means you can’t have the state party favoring one candidate over another in terms of access to information to get campaigns going.

Santorum sounds like he is whining for public funded presidential elections. You get money when you get your message out and people like it. The reforms help identify candidates early and get their information to the same voters that the keepers of the keys have.

One of my biggest gripes with the last election here in VA was that there was an ad run by some feminazi group that flat-out said that Mitt Romney wanted to ban abortions. Well, that wasn’t Romney’s position but this one ad was played unchallenged so often that polling showed a significant number of stupid women actually believed it. You can’t win elections by ignoring the way your enemy is trying to package your campaign.

Happy Nomad on March 19, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Yep, ignoring social issues was a big mistake. We need to define social issues on a conservative definition- state rights. There were women who actually believed that Repubs wanted to ban tampons.. Dems love LIV because they can sell them anything and Repub will let them buy it unchallenged.

This “autopsy” is ultimate attestation of GOP dysfunction and co-dependence; it is an unconscious concession and tribute to the final territorial and moral victory of the Left. It formalizes the surrender.

Nowhere in the autopsy is a recognition of the root cause of the GOP’s decline – a central failure to identify and confront the Left not only on conservative terms but at all. Instead, the autopsy absorbs and reflects back the Left’s terms for political existence and its redefinition of the GOP.

I’ve been denouncing the establishment for years but always maintained a core refusal to accept its total amoebic unawareness and terminal incapacity to resist or reform. That is over with.

Hey, I’ve got a three legged arthritic min-pin mix I’d like to nominate.

The problem is the GOP has been nominating “me-too-ists-just-not-as-much-ists” rather than articulating, in a coherent, rational manner (pay attention, Ron Paulists) the alternative message to the nanny state of liberty. Do not appeal to demographics, appeal to individuals.

That’s because it is impossible to out Santa the party of free stuff. People that respond to promises of SSM, or free birth control, or amnesty are not going to listen to the conservative message. They’re greedy stupid parasites who want stuff from their government and the Dems are more than happy to pander. The GOP can offer up its own versions of stuff but it always comes off as weak sauce compared to the full-throated blaring promises made by the Dems.

Happy Nomad on March 19, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Actually, you can out free-stuff the Dems.

Just not in the way Reince thinks it can be done.

Preach freedom, limited government, and the ability – rather, privilege – to make educated decisions for yourself, and the beauty of that concept, which has never been tried before in human history.

And how concepts of SSM and birth control are not freeing, but rather, arresting to the individual and destructive to the individual.

THAT’S how you win the argument. But as long as the GOP sticks its head in the sand, I might as well be speaking Farsi or Latin.

Yep, ignoring social issues was a big mistake. We need to define social issues on a conservative definition- state rights. There were women who actually believed that Repubs wanted to ban tampons.. Dems love LIV because they can sell them anything and Repub will let them buy it unchallenged.

melle1228 on March 19, 2013 at 9:41 AM

The biggest shocker for me in the last election, and may be for many on our side, is how much the abortion issue played such a huge role in riling up the democrat base of single women…

BTW, you should see all the businesses for sale with the fear of Obamacare! One owner told me he is going to close if he has to buy health insurance coverage. He called the local TV station and was ignored.

They don’t call him back! LOL

I am looking to buy a business but I could have an empire of convenience stores. Buy them all! LOL

Perfect! Not only showing that the GOP is a big tent that attracts more than just sporting breeds but also showing that we don’t discriminate against the disabled (an untapped special interest bloc behind gays, illegals, and stupid women).

I agree with you. The GOP message can’t be “we don’t have a war on women” it has to be “It is absurd to claim that the GOP hates women. Here’s what we believe….” And spell out things like economic opportunity, the need to cut the debt for future generations, and all the other things women care about besides their women parts. I know more than a few women that were really mad that the election basically portrayed women as caring solely about contraception and the ability to abort an unwanted life. As if women had no stake in jobs, the economy, or national security.

For those who can’t read, look at the crux of the above captioned article on poor Mitt’s ground game:

In a technical sense, the Romney campaign actually does not have a ground game at all. It has handed over that responsibility to the Republican National Committee, which leads a coordinated effort intended to boost candidates from the top of the ticket on down. The RNC says this is an advantage: The presidential campaign and the local campaigns aren’t duplicating efforts, and the RNC was able to start building its ground operation to take on Obama in March, before Romney had secured the GOP nomination.

“The Romney campaign doesn’t do the ground game,” Rick Wiley, the RNC’s political director, told me. “They have essentially ceded that responsibility to the RNC. They understand this is our role.” The disadvantage of this is that the RNC is composed of its state Republican Parties, which vary dramatically in quality. States like Florida and Virginia have strong Republican operations, while those in Iowa and Nevada haven’t recovered from attempted takeovers by Ron Paul partisans, and the Ohio GOP still bears the scars of a protracted leadership fight earlier in the year.

The biggest shocker for me in the last election, and may be for many on our side, is how much the abortion issue played such a huge role in riling up the democrat base of single women…

mnjg on March 19, 2013 at 9:58 AM

It went well beyond abortion. The Dems had many women convinced the GOP wanted to ban birth control thanks to the campaign launched by George Stephanopoulos when he moderated the New Hampshire primary debate.

Whatever. The GOP can f*ck itself and it’s Democrat-lite ‘outreach’ all it wants, it has abandoned it’s base, it’s abandoned the people responsible for the only electoral victory it’s had in the last FOUR two-year cycles, and decided to go with more of why it LOST three out of those four, so…

F*ck them. This isn’t going to work for them; they can be as warm and fuzzy and ‘moderate’ as they like, but they’ll never out-left the left no matter how hard they try. They’ve won their last national election given the course they’re on, and a whole lot of people will never darken the GOP circle on another ballot so long as they continue on this path, and continue nominating sh1tty candidates as part of that process.

If Republicans are going to be no different than Democrats, what difference does it make?

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Quite a bit. Like it or not, the United States is still a two-party system. But to get beyond the worst aspects of establishment Republicanism (yeah Rove I’m talking about you) we require grass roots activism. That isn’t going to happen if people upset at the Dem-lite tendencies of some results in third-party nonsense which is doomed to fail.

That’s essentially the problem; the GOP has too many factions fighting each other more than they go against the Democrats. The Pubs have put up squishes for presidential candidates, who are trying to please everyone but end up being the kind of people who gets votes by many holding their nose. In this last case, Mitt didn’t really want the job, it seems. I can’t help but think he was more shocked than anyone that he got the nomination. Add in how the Pubs make no effort to define themselves instead of letting the MSM do it for them, and we have a recipe for perpetual disaster.

They’ve won their last national election given the course they’re on, and a whole lot of people will never darken the GOP circle on another ballot so long as they continue on this path, and continue nominating sh1tty candidates as part of that process.

Midas on March 19, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I always said that Rick Santorum and a “Ban Birth Control” plank would be perfect to get the women to turn out.

But the election was not just won in the center… though that’s vastly important to the numbers. You can make the claim that a certain percentage of the hard core, Right base didn’t turn out. The numbers support that. But there were a ton of Northeastern, Midwest and left coast Republicans who still voted for Mitt. And if you put up one of these other, caucus powered, outside candidates, you’d have lost them in the mix.

Bullspit! They all turned out yet there was not enough of them. Stop buying into the Limbaugh nonsense. Also anyone claims to be a patriot and conservative who after the last four years who sat the election out is worthless and can go to hell.

You can rebrand it all you want but this is NOT A CONSERVATIVE Limited government party of Reagan. This is the party of compassionate, thousand points of light BUSH Progressivism.

……you can spin all you want. Amnesty and having 70% of those voters wanting to be on the Federal teat will seal ONE PARTY RULE for generations to come.

PappyD61 on March 19, 2013 at 8:59 AM

I agree Pappy. The amnesty of 1986 and several smaller amnesties before and after it were all billed as “the last amnesty ever.” If the past is any guide, increased enforcement will be minimal. And there will be nothing to eliminate “anchor babies” or “chain migration.”

“While I commend Chairman Priebus for taking important steps to remedy Republicans’ recent election failures, I am troubled by the possibility of a condensed presidential primary process which undoubtedly gives an advantage to establishment backed candidates and the wealthiest candidates,” said Brabender.

There’s an important distinction that we shouldn’t gloss over. When we talk about “the wealthiest candidates”, do we mean “the candidates with the most personal wealth” or “the candidates who are able to raise the most money from other people“?

As we saw with Mitt Romney, there can sometimes be a lot of baggage that goes with being a candidate who has a lot of personal wealth. But raising lots of money from other people is, or should not be, a detrimental factor. And failing to raise a lot of money from other people is a bad sign for a candidate.

We have to assume that future Democratic candidates will have virtually unlimited campaign funds. (They’re certainly not going to go back to being dependent on publicly financed campaigns with limited budgets.) And if a Republican candidate is struggling to raise enough money to win the Republican nomination, that candidate is probably not going to have an easy time raising enough money to win the general election.

So I can understand if you want to dump on candidates who have a lot of personal wealth … but if your candidate can’t raise a lot of money from other people, he probably should not be our party’s presidential nominee.

to drive the potentially viable ones further and further to the Right to try to keep up.

That says it all here at RINO Central. Jazz believes the socialist myth that conservatism leads to authoritarianism and totalitarianism when every “Right Wing” dictator in history has been a socialist. When these comrades get so bad that the socialist movement can’t even make excuses for them anymore they label them Right Wing.

The study the RNC just published is the first Jeb Bush for President campaign material. RINOs are for fascism and limiting the ability of the people to have a good look at the candidates over a period of time when it is difficult to hide their true natures. Limiting the primaries allows the establishment and money power brokers to choose their president. 300 million Americans and in 2016 we will have to choose whether a Bush or a Clinton should run this country?

The democrats keep winning because the republican party is not a conservative party and undermines conservative candidates at every opportunity. Not being a conservative party, they are willing to let the media demonize conservatives. The republican party, in doing this, is cutting off it’s own nose to spite its face. The conservative way is the American Way. If efficiently and clearly articulated, conservatism wins. The media has so slandered and oppressed the truth that the majority of citizens in this country are ignorant of reality. The republicans have no message, they are in a constant state of defense and will never be able regain power in this country unless the professional politicians and liberals are sent packing and the party goes on the offensive with a true conservative agenda.

I know you have no reliable source for anything you say so I’m not going to bother asking.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 10:28 AM

The source is simply observation; try it for a few minutes.

I swear, you and so many others are like Democrats – what’s the aversion to facts and experience? You can’t see that what’s being espoused has been tried – recently – and failed? Why would you want more of it? That which worked in 2010 is being avoided like the plague – riduculed and denounced – yet it *worked*.

But please, pander away to groups who will not vote Republican, and nominate more candidates that won’t win. Have at it, and goodl luck with it.

Just like someday the Dems will raise enough taxes and spend enough to finally brinhg prosperity and low unemployment to the country, I’m sure your endless pursuit of failed policies will someday pay off.

To the point Priebus was making, as you wind your way through 23 debates, it just represents one opportunity after another for these candidates to drive the potentially viable ones further and further to the Right to try to keep up. This is great for conservative headlines, but leaves them increasingly vulnerable when one of them finally makes it to the general election. Also – and we shouldn’t have to argue about this very much – the moderators for the majority of these debates are there to actively dig up incendiary sound bites to discredit conservatives and fill up cable news air time. How many bites at that apple would you like to give them? How many times do you want all the candidates to get asked about rape and the Voting Rights Act and Social Security and all the rest of the Left wing headline drivers before enough is enough?

You know, maybe you should look into who the savants were that allowed those moderators, and why?

Everyone on the right would have been fine with Jake Tapper or Anderson Cooper. But, somehow, we got Stephanopolous and Crowley.

Why?

Because of GOP players believing George’s name brand recognition was going to draw in moderates viewers.

How did we end up with Candy Crowley for a General Election debate?

Because the GOP establishment were convinced into believing they needed a female moderator for a Presidential debate, because it would show them as equality players.

The problem, Jazz, is as Caddell said – the advisers. They buy this nonsense, because like you, it’s the image of the party they want to be apart of, not the reality of the party.

If the GOP held to one rule in the primaries and general election – the best moderators or we’re not involved – over half the problems are resolved.

Do you really think Herman Cain can withstand Tapper? Santorum against Cooper? Nope.

The person who should be in charge of designing the debate forums, is Gingrich. A guy who has a foot in each world, a person who was an underdog but could raise money because of his performance.

Rinse is full of shite. He’s another Bush stalking horse who’s terrified of Rand Paul obliterating Jeb in Iowa and New Hampshire, and making Bush win in Florida near-impossible if Rubio is still in the mix.

But what else should I expect from Jazz. He thinks Scarby’s comments come from loyalty to the country and conservatism first, when it’s actually to NBC.

Because the GOP establishment were convinced into believing they needed a female moderator for a Presidential debate, because it would show them as equality players.

THAT is a sad but true comment.

Bill O’Reilly last night was incongruous about the Colorado Democrat party being hand in glove with the media. The media has been connected with both sides for a century or so, true. But it has developed that they have become the artillery and air support for the Dems.

If you watch the tape, that whole exchange was set up. Our POTUS was waiting for Mitt to walk down that path. The reactions were FAR TOO PAT and neatly practiced.

The position was hammered out with Crowley before the topic was brought up.

You can make the claim that a certain percentage of the hard core, Right base didn’t turn out.

But that would not make a difference in red states where Romney got 55-68% of the vote; the battleground states were extremely close, and Romney got more votes than McCain did. If you were a conservative base voter…you stayed home and did not vote for senate? congress? I don’t believe it. If you stay home you are not a “likely voter” so when would you act like the base and vote. The base of voters can only be people who actually vote.

Here is where the votes were needed:

Battleground states where Romney could have used just a few more voters: Florida, 200,000 voters for 29 electoral votes
Virginia, 116,000 votes for 13 electoral votes
Colorado, 113,000 for 9 electoral votes
Nevada, 66,000 for 6 electoral votes
New Mexico 75,000 votes for 5 electoral votes
New Hampshire 41,000 votes for the 4 electoral votes

If you are one of the four million Romney/republican voters whose vote did not help Romney win this time, you might consider moving to one of these states, not Texas. They have enough red voters…for now at least.

You want to win? Really want to win? Go with the Sekhmet Plan (in no particular order):

1. Don’t even think the words “front runner” before July of 2015. Don’t give the Dems a years-long advantage in calibrating their counter-campaign before we get our campaign going

2. Point out attacks from 0bama’s left. While the target audience is quiet now, they won’t be quiet in an open Presidential primary, where they can be useful against establishment Democrats like Hillary

3. Mend fences. We need the entire coalition to win.

4. Kill amnesty. This may be the plan as we are speaking, to kill amnesty with kindness, in hopes of defusing the race bomb. So I’m not about to go nuts yet.

5. Pressure states to close primaries. Use data from previous elections to determine where the most fake crossover voters (Democrats who mess with our primaries) are, find out what it takes to get a candidate on their Democrat primary ballot somewhere who will cause them to want to remain Democrats to vote against him, rather than cross over and mess with us.

6. Push Voter ID laws. Get them in place for 2016 like they weren’t in place for 2012.

7. Use our advantage in the House to forbid the direct hiring of media people by Congressmen. Make the journ0lists write press releases about widget recalls or nuking gay communist whales for Jesus for a few years if they want to work in politics, instead of bringing their political ambitions into the newsroom.

8. Relax, but don’t get complacent. Rand is smarter than his dad. He can make Libertarian conservative appeal without becoming a magnet for Occutards and the Black Helicopter Brigade. Suburban and rural counties don’t have election boards that ignore claims from groups like True the Vote, and don’t have enough dependent voters the Democrats can rile to the polls by saying we want to take their tampons away.

The biggest shocker for me in the last election, and may be for many on our side, is how much the abortion issue played such a huge role in riling up the democrat base of single women…

mnjg on March 19, 2013 at 9:58 AM

It went well beyond abortion. The Dems had many women convinced the GOP wanted to ban birth control.

bw222 on March 19, 2013 at 10:17 AM

You’re suprised that young women abandoned the GOP in droves after the GOP sought to exclude from prescription drug coverage the only prescription drug most women under 40 take and then called them sluts for taking it?

The GOP “autopsy” report includes a statement about the need for a bipartisan effort to amend campaign finance laws to limit the emergence or influence of outside groups and “third parties.” Which means, of course, the Tea Party.

This is how lost and corrupt these people are. We’ll keep seeing a slow bleed. If another RINO — or rather another invincibly electable “moderate” — muscles his way through the primaries in 2016, the race against a not-Obama democrat won’t even be close.

The rich white guys are toast. We are going to make this country Green, female and brown and we are going to gut the military and there ain’t nothing going to stop us since we have a good hand at the tiller (President Obama, I guess) and the media in our pocket.

the only thing that scares us, short of an insurrection (which we are ready for,) is Fox News and a few savvy congressmen like Frank Wolf.

bipartisan effort to amend campaign finance laws to limit the emergence or influence of outside groups and “third parties.”

Which means, of course, the Tea Party.

You may be reading that there, but elsewhere in this document I am seeing more fair more vetted outside candidates, which keeps egg off the face of Tea Partiers if they go with some unknown and they have skeletons in the closet, and offers the outsiders a chance at closely held campaign information like which voters to contact, who donates, and makes it more reasonable that the people who run your local party have to be accepting of whomever wins the primary, so we don’t have a case like Christine O’Donnell, where the local party doesn’t show up to help her after she wins legitimately.

I would hope the same would also help where a Lisa Murkowski loses and doesn’t take “her” party resources with her to run as an independent.

Nice try. No one was called a slut for taking or using birth control. Rush Limbaugh equated the DEMAND from a female law student at a $40k per year law school that taxpayers subsidize the contraception required to satisfy her admittedly unaffordable sexual habits as slutty or “round-heeled” behavior.

And you’re willing to assert that the chief voting criteria for young women is taxpayer-financed contraception? Nice respect for women.

Just like someday the Dems will raise enough taxes and spend enough to finally brinhg prosperity and low unemployment to the country, I’m sure your endless pursuit of failed policies will someday pay off.

Midas on March 19, 2013 at 10:49 AM

What brand do you smoke?

What policies do I advocate for the GOP?

I have not mentioned any.

I do know that the GOP is not on a competitive track let alone a winning track! Calling other GOP people names doesn’t help, however. And you believe issues lost in 2012.

I am not sure. And nobody has any proof that Newt or Sarah would have made a clear difference in the result.

With the media, the events of the year and the grass roots organization of the left, they probably would have lost in a different way.

Because of GOP players believing George’s name brand recognition was going to draw in moderates viewers.

budfox on March 19, 2013 at 10:50 AM

We don’t need to worry about drawing in viewers for the Republican debates. People will tune in to the debates no matter who the moderator is or what network they air on.

Even MSNBC managed to get good ratings when they showed a Republican debate.

For that reason, if the Republican Party wants to produce its own debates, and select its own moderators, we shouldn’t worry much about who is going to broadcast them. MSNBC would probably broadcast a Republican debate moderated by Rush Limbaugh if they didn’t have to pay for it, just to get the ratings that night.

And you’re willing to assert that the chief voting criteria for young women is taxpayer-financed contraception? Nice respect for women.

rrpjr on March 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM

You give Democratic Party voting women a lot of credit.

That issue (birth control) was used as an emblem or crack for the Dems. It had to help. The retort you made is silly.

Women believe they aren’t treated fairly. I can’t find any but Dems tell me that numerous polls show that. The main thing from women I know is pay and the glass ceiling. But which party most looks like a crack maker in the ceiling? The Dems wanted that issue. That is obvious.

Any changes to the party’s nominating process would have to be ratified by the full membership of the RNC. The first debate on the recommendation will take place next month at the party’s spring meeting in Los Angeles, but party veterans don’t expect any final resolution on the 2016 plan that soon.

I wonder who are these “full” members of the RNC? Priebus is part of the problem, not the solution at all.

Another comment from the article: “It looks like a system of the establishment, by the establishment, and for the establishment,” said conservative P.R. executive Greg Mueller, a veteran of Pat Buchanan’s campaigns.